Boudreaux v. Schlumberger Tech Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

July 9, 2018

BROCK BOUDREAUX, ET AL.v.SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP.

PEREZ-MONTES, MAG. JUDGE

RULING ON APPEAL

DEE D.
DRELL, JUDGE

The
above-captioned suit was conditionally certified as a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. §216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by order of U.S.
Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill, issued February 25, 2015.
(Doc. 52). Plaintiffs were previously divided into two (2)
classes: 133 directional drillers ("DDs") and 168
measurement while drilling operators ("MWDs").
(Doc. 52). Following a telephone conference and review of
submissions by the parties on March 14, 2018, Magistrate
Judge Carol Whitehurst, issued a discovery order directing
Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corp. ("STC") to
select its 15 deponents first, to be followed by the
selection of random deponents. (Doc. 229). STC appeals the
Magistrate Judge's order, claiming abuse of discretion.
(Doc. 230).

STC
asserts that the Magistrate Judge's failure to provide
any oral or written reasons in support of her decision
regarding the March 14, 2018 order constitutes an abuse of
discretion. STC further asserts that given the random
selection process chosen by the Magistrate Judge, it forces
STC primarily to rely upon representative
discovery.[1] Hence they claim the Magistrate Judge is
violating its due process rights under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.[2]

We
review the appeal filed by STC under the "clearly
erroneous or contrary to law" standard found in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Pursuant to Rule 72(a), in reviewing a
Magistrate Judge's order on a non-dispositive matter,
"[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law."
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); See Castillo
v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). Under this
standard, a finding is clearly erroneous when "although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v.
Bessemer City,470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (citing
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948)); McAllister v. U.S.348 U.S. 19 (1954).

Plaintiff
responds in support of the Magistrate Judge's order,
arguing that, STC previously agreed to the selection process
prior to the order and is simply employing tactics to further
delay the case. (Doc. 232-2 at pp.2). Plaintiffs stance is
that STC is already aware of the differences in job
descriptions among the class members. Therefore, in no way
would suffer prejudice for the ordered process of random
sampling. Additionally, Plaintiff has requested an award for
attorney fees pursuant to STC's lack of compliance with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g).

STC has
not met its burden of proof in this appeal, as to both
arguments presented. STC, as the appellant, is required to
demonstrate that the Magistrate's failure to provide any
oral or written reasons in support of her decision regarding
the March 14, 2018 order constituted clear legal
error.[3] Yet, STC has given the court no evidence
for which we might develop a "definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed" by the
Magistrate Judge.[4]

Our
review of the applicable law and jurisprudence reveals that
Magistrate Judge Whitehurst's order directing STC to
select its 15 deponents first, to be followed by the
selection of the random deponents, comports with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and traditional notions of due
process. The appeal before us again raises the issue of
whether limiting STC's discovery is an impediment to the
exercise of its due process and/or a deprivation of the
opportunity to prepare certain defenses. As we previously
observed in the court's 2016 ruling, representative
discovery is an accepted practice, particularly in FLSA
collective actions. Cranney v. Carriage Services,
Inc., 2008 WL 2457912 (D. Nev. 6/16/2008). There is no
general due process violation here.

The
appellant, STC, is required to demonstrate, therefore, that
the ordered selection procedure will cause their
representative discovery to be statistically insignificant
such that STC's due process rights will be threatened.
Nelson v. American Standard, Inc., 2009 WL 4730166
(E.D. Tex. 12/4/2009). STC postulates this, but has not
offered proof, statistical or numerical, as to the likelihood
of statistical insignificance as a result of the ordered
selection procedure. The court recognizes the limitation
placed upon STC's discovery to a degree. However, the
methodology ordered by the Magistrate Judge was so ordered
with purpose and merit and is sustainable.

Given
these findings, the undersigned is satisfied that the order
of the Magistrate Judge comports with applicable law and
jurisprudence. It is, therefore ORDERED that
STC's appeal is DENIED and
DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees (Doc. 232 at pp.
7-8) is DENIED. However, the court cautions
that further unwarranted delay by STC may well result in the
imposition of sanctions, including attorney fees and costs.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.